We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details and instructions on how to disable those cookies are set out at nortonrosefulbright.com/cookies-policy. By continuing to use this website you agree to our use of our cookies unless you have disabled them.

Rock occupied offices under a written licence agreement. The agreement stated that "All variations to this licence must be agreed, set out in writing and signed on behalf of both parties before they take effect" - a common enough clause in commercial contracts, but is it enforceable?

Rock fell into licence fee arrears and orally agreed a revised schedule of payments with the licensor’s credit controller spreading the accumulated arrears over the remainder of the licence term. The licensor subsequently challenged the oral variation, terminated the licence for breach and sued for the arrears.

Was the licensor bound by the oral variation?

The Supreme Court stated that there were sound commercial reasons for NOM clauses, not least that they prevent attempts to undermine written agreements by informal means, avoid disputes as to exact terms and make it easier for corporations to police their own internal rules restricting the authority to agree variations. The law of contract does not normally obstruct the legitimate interests of businessmen except for overriding reasons of public policy. The NOM clause was legally effective and the oral variation was invalid for not complying with it.

A welcome decision in terms of commercial clarity and risk management but also a warning to comply with the formalities of any NOM clause if varying a term in an agreement no matter how friendly the parties, to avoid a possible future challenge.

As a footnote, bear in mind that agreements for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land have their own rules: they, and any variations to them, must always be in writing and comply with strict statutory formalities to be effective.

Contacts

Recent publications

Canada: Some relief from temporary layoff obligations and potential constructive dismissals for Ontario employers under ESA

It is estimated the pandemic has directly affected approximately 2.2 million employees in Ontario, with about 1.1 million losing their jobs, and another 1.1 million on temporary layoff or with sharply reduced hours of work.

Publication | June 5, 2020 - 5 PM ET

Employment and labor

UK: Essential Corporate News: Week ending June 5, 2020

On May 27, 2020, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published Market Watch Issue 63 (MW 63) in which the FCA set out their expectations of market conduct in the context of increased capital raising events and alternative working arrangements due to the coronavirus.

Publication | June 05, 2020

Corporate, M&A and securities

Global: COVID-19: Joint ventures in a distressed environment

This briefing looks at some of the challenges for existing corporate joint ventures as well as the key issues to be considered when entering into new joint venture arrangements whilst the continuing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are felt and in the depressed market conditions which are likely to persist for the short to medium term.